Wednesday, June 15, 2005

LP platform reform is necessary

If anyone doubts that the LP platform stops the party from growing and being more successful, read this string of comments from a Fark link regarding a protest made by a member of the Free State Project. More information about the protest here.

Basically, a lot of the commenters on Fark seem sympathetic to libertarianism but are turned off by the anarchic positions of the party.

How much more obvious can the demand for a moderate LP platform be?

3 Comments:

At 1:13 AM, Blogger Nehemiah said...

Great site! I really like what you have said on lp.org blog. I am 100% with you. We need to keep the philosophy but become more of a party. Until then, this is all just nice talk.

 
At 11:18 AM, Blogger Christopher Monnier said...

> We need to keep the philosophy but become more of a party.

Well said.

Thanks for reading.

 
At 8:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you are attempting to draw some sort of correlation between that Fark article (about the guy who refused to willingly go along with government-mandated airline security procedures), and anarchism... I must totally be missing your point.

You are so far off the mark, I doubt if you are even a libertarian. More likely, either a Republican with libertarian-leaning sentiments, or Paleo-conservative masquerading as a libertarian. Hell, even most paleo-conservatives would fully understand this guys position and would absolutely agree with it on the grounds that the US Constitution is not negotiable, and neither is capitalism (the TSA usurped an entire sector of private industry and nationalized it, thats communism!)

Your attempt to paint people who support these kinds of actions as some "anarchistic fring element" of the Libertarian Party is patently absurd and illustrates that you are completely incapable of understanding basic political theory.

You simply dont understand the difference between an anarchist and a minarchist or a constitutionalist. Radicalism doesnt make one an "anarchist", yet that is exactly what you are implying.

So let me explain some basic political theory for you because you seem to be, if not utterly confused as to what constitutes an anarchist, and if not that.... then you are being intentionally manipulative and intellectually dishonest because you are knowingly falsely paiting strict-constuctionists of the Constitution as being "anarchists".

The Constitution is a document predicated upon positive law.

Those who choose to abide by the written word of law, by very definition, cannot in any way shape, or form, be considered anarchists.

Anarchists do not believe in the validity of "social compacts" (i.e. positive-law or constitutions) because they dont believe social compacts can bind multiple generations. Hence, your assertation is totally false.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home